The random technotheolosophical blogging of Reid S. Monaghan
Great love gives life to friends
As creation began, so it will end
Life instilled, the greatest gift
Life restored, from greatest rift
Restoration…Redemption…Hope
Through many fogs we grope
Never forsaken, never alone
Through greatest sacrifice…
Welcomed home
Dr. William Lane Craig is one of the preeminent theistic philosophers of our time and he is also an excellent debater. He is clear, intelligent and focused in debate.
Recently he debated Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss on the subject “Is there evidence for the existence of God” at North Carolina State University (booo! OK, NC State should exist…but booo! Go Heels!) Ok, I’m back now. The debate is online now and can be found here.
Just be warned, the video is all sorts of weird at the beginning - I really felt like singing “Somewhere over the rainbow” when waiting for the debate to begin. Do yourself a favor and drag that video slider over to 16:30 min mark where a North Carolina Supreme Court Judge guy gives the greeting and introduction to the debate. Thank me later.
Enjoy
My friends who know me will realize what a momentous title this blog carries. Over the years I have had not a small bit of fun with the clone phone carriers who stoop to pay homage at the alter of Steve Jobs. I still type this on a PC so there is no fear of a complete conversion, yet something a bit strange happened to me this week. Now, don t get me wrong, I am a technological diversity champion using a Dell XPS laptop, Palm Pre (original/Sprint) and the family having a couple of i devices from the fruit company.
As I am somewhat on vacation this week (though working from the road, preaching this Sunday) I thought I would share a bit of my heart in what happened to place this iPhone at my side today. This week I am in Memphis, TN with my three children visiting aunts, uncles, cousins and having the kids stay at Grandmas house. On Monday we went downtown to do a few things and my son was climbing all over me and apparently, inadvertently, stepped on my pocketed Palm Pre phone. After realizing the touch screen was not working I noticed a spider like crack in the screen. This of course brought both sadness (I LOVE web OS) and a bit of a dilemma. I had planned on making a smartphone decision this summer in June but alas it was now thrust upon me.
Seeing that we have no home phone and I am a guy that uses his phone daily for just about everything I do, I went right over to the trusty (um, well maybe not) Sprint store to get a replacement. The following sad story is unfortunately true.
So, after this sad story, I ended up with Verizon and the best phone out on their network today - iPhone 4. After using this phone for a couple of days I have to say I dearly miss my Palm Pre. With the Sprint likely not getting the HP Pre 3 this summer at least I might have the option to move back to webOS and give my wife the iPhone once her contract with Sprint is up.
iPhone Pros - I love the screen, the speed, the sturdy feel of the hardware (though I fear dropping this thing). Video looks great and the basic phone functions work well enough. Of course, the best thing is all the apps and their quality. The fact that my iTunes account has all apps we have purchases as a fam on iOS the fact that I did not have to repurchase any apps was really cool. I also like the iPod integration and I can truly now roll with just one device.
iPhone Cons - I absolutely hate the keyboard so far. Other than this the Cons have to do with webOS and its superiority to iOS on several fronts. I miss the integration of all my contacts and being able to just start typing someone s name to text, call, email them. Too much in and out of multiple apps on iPhone. I miss the wonderfully elegant multitasking and the notifications of webOS. iOS just feels clunky on these fronts. I also really, really miss my slide out hardware keyboard.
Over the summer I will watch the phone space as iPhone 5 and HP Pre 3 will launch. I am guessing both will be on Verizon. If I want to head back to webOS I can pick up the Pre 3 and give iPhone 4 to Kasey once we get her off of Sprint. If I continue to grow in appreciation for iPhone we can pick up the new one this summer with the new contract price. $199 isn t bad for iPhone.
Perhaps the one thing that may cause me to fully drink the iKoolaid is FaceTime. Yes it is gimmicky, yes its only on Wifi, yes it is proprietary Apple tech/branding but I gave my kids an iTouch not too long ago and it is a delightful thing to FaceTime with the kids when on the road. I look forward to my April trip to Brown University to try this out from the road. Last night a same house test session at Mimis was a HUGE success.
I feel like I have switched allegiances in some way and I m not so sure I’m comfortable being an iPhony yet. But the journey has been interesting so far and perhaps I have been predestined to end up with an iPhone all along. I suppose God only knows.
In reading St. Anselm’s The Proslogian over the last ten years of my life I have found myself returning to several of his prayers in my devotional moorings. These prayers continue to hold influence in my life. The prayers of chapter one in particular have pushed me forward towards God in a really good way. Here is a sampling.
UP now, slight man! flee, for a little while, thy occupations; hide thyself, for a time, from thy disturbing thoughts. Cast aside, now, thy burdensome cares, and put away thy toilsome business. Yield room for some little time to God; and rest for a little time in him. Enter the inner chamber of thy mind; shut out all thoughts save that of God, and such as can aid thee in seeking him; close thy door and seek him. Speak now, my whole heart! speak now to God, saying, I seek thy face; thy face, Lord, will I seek (). And come thou now, O Lord my God, teach my heart where and how it may seek thee, where and how it may find thee.
Maybe its my background in amateur wrestling that makes me love talk like that. Get up little man! His calls to himself to get up and get to prayer and deep meditation before God have both convicted me and encouraged me deeply. Anselm’s prayers are particularly helpful for those who either love or hate theological reflection. Anselm serves as a great example to us in that we can indeed think deep thoughts about God, yet maintain a burning heart for God. The doing of theology, philosophy and categories of biblical doctrine can be pursued, yes should be pursued, with a pious zeal for God.
Having a zeal which is according to the knowledge of God is indeed a biblical concept. By the negative way we find this idea in Romans 10 where Paul speaks of Israel having a zeal which is NOT according to knowledge. As one who loves theology I need to learn to neither lose God in the books nor give way to a non-thinking piety. The former grows dry and cold while the latter stops short of the hard work of integrating gospel thinking throughout all of life. To cease doing this hard work of theological integration or to lose a rich love for Jesus in the gospel will leave God’s people disconnected from his mission in the world. We will be steeped in an irrelevant ignorance or not walk in the spiritual vitality from which Paul could say “be imitators of me as I am of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 11:1)
Anselm shows me that both “head” and “heart” matter in our love for God. Afterall, was it not Jesus who taught us to love God with all that we are?
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
Yes, all that we are was made by him and for him. So let us have both mind and heart drawn upward and be set ablaze by our communion with God. Afterall, the prayer above is proceeding a work in philosophical theology; a matter that hardly seemed boring to the old archbishop of Canterbury.
I usually do not engage in what I deem evangelical politics or the evangelical celebrity culture. I find the whole clamoring game to be quite tedious and many times a making of all manner of men the center of our discourse. Our event features this person! Did you hear what he said?!? and her response!?!
Yet as evangelicalism is primarily led by big name pastors and publishing houses, the influence of people sort of wanders around a bit in various loosely affiliated crowds. As such, a local leader who is loving and serving his people must interact with the popular books and influential rock star pastors of the day. Some are good. Some not so much. Recently the bloggers, buzzers and tweeters have been lighting up about the recent video put out by Rob Bell and his coming book. The name Rob Bell even made the trending list of Twitter this weekend. I m sure those who like the buzz liked all of this very much.
The issues at hand are of great importance to the heart of the gospel and the message of the New Testament. It is right for people of faith to be concerned. Personally, I wrote a private note to my friends and leaders at Jacob s Well when all this starting going around. My care is for the understanding of our community and the broader movement of which I feel a part. Realizing I am a Protestant I also realize the spheres for which I am actually responsible. I do not know Rob Bell, never likely to meet him nor I am personally responsible for him or what he teaches. I am responsible if, by the strange realities of American church culture, he becomes a teacher for our people via blogs/books/videos etc. So I am trying to be responsible locally and have my head up and listen.
Others have and will be addressing the substance of Bell’s indirect communication and questioning that arise from his words and the performance in his recent video. What I am concerned about is how confessional evangelicals react to this sort of thing. My thoughts are only offered to my friends to encourage them about how they flow with the doctrines they hold. It matters deeply how we represent the truth to which we rightly hold firm. Some simple observations.
In the second chapter of the book of Titus the family of faith was encouraged about their manner of life together. Men and women, young and old, slave and free were all encouraged about how they flowed in life together. They were all new Christians, all living life together as a new people in Christ. There is great teaching for us here.
2Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. 3Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. 6Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. 7Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, 8and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us. 9Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, 10not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.
There is a way of life that adorns the doctrine of God our Savior. What a humbling and shocking reality! There is also a way that serves to graffiti and deface that same doctrine. The doctrine of God is heard from and seen in the lives of Christ s followers today. If you flow like a jerk, you might just be shrouding the gospel and leading people straight to the teaching of nice leaders who may not even be preaching the truth. None of us are or will be perfect in tone, speech or reaction in our world. My failures here are many. Yet we want to repent when we fail one another in with jerkful tones, distracting speech and harsh reactions to those around us.
What you believe matters deeply. How we live with others matters deeply. Let us have the gospel of grace make us people of grace. We cannot just live with our audience being the church/Christian world, we have to hold firm to the word with grace before the world. It is from these grounds which we continue to proclaim the gospel and with deep sobriety. We must find refuge in Jesus from the wrath to come. Hell may not be an empty place but may our hearts pray and work to see that many know that they need not go there. Forgiveness is found in Christ alone. Go preach that message friends and adorn it well.
The Reverand Richard Allen (1760-1831), Picture by Daniel Payne (Original Source)
To be the first to do something in history is often seen as a sign of greatness surrounded by glory. The first man on the moon, the first man to break the sound barrier, the first woman to hold elected office, the first African American president. Yet we must not forget the difficulty and struggle of being the first to break barriers of injustice set up by systems of inequality and oppression over long periods of time. Richard Allen was a such a man who showed great strength and courage in his life. He did not choose a path of division and strife, but he firmly walked forward with a gospel call on his life, caring deeply for the souls of his fellow Africans in America. Rev Allen was one of the founding fathers of America that too few have heard about. He was a man who worked diligently for King Jesus and his Kingdom in the early days of American experience.
Richard was born a slave in Philadelphia on February 14th 1760.1He was born into the household of one Benjamin Chew who was an influential attorney and at a time was chief justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.2 When Allen was a young boy he and his family were sold to a farmer just outside of Dover, Delaware. At the age of seventeen he had a profound conversion to Jesus Christ and began to preach the gospel to those with whom he worked as well as in surrounding Methodist churches. His ministry was so powerful his owner actually was converted to Christ through his witness. This eventually led to Allen being permitted to work to purchase his freedom by a process known as gradual manumission.3
During the revolutionary war years Allen drove a wagon delivering salt an occasion which he used as opportunity to preach the gospel as a traveling evangelist. As was the practice of Methodist founder John Wesley, Allen preached a circuit whereby he would travel place to place proclaiming the salvation of Jesus Christ. He preached throughout Delaware and other Mid Atlantic states including the great state of New Jersey. 4
After the revolutionary war many important changes happened in the Methodist church of which Allen was a part. First, in 1784 John Wesley established the Methodist Episcopal Church in America with Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury as its overseers.5 This united the Methodists as one church and a separate entity from its Anglican (Church of England) roots. Allen was also befriended by Asbury who even invited him to travel on the road and preach with him. Though they remained deeply connected, Allen declined the more extensive travel due to segregated and harsh living conditions which were imposed upon blacks at the time.6
In 1786 he completed the process of manumission and purchased his freedom for $2,000. In the same year he returned to Philadelphia as a free man and became a member of St. George’s Methodist Church. His faithful ministry and leadership began to draw many more black members into the congregation. It was at this time that racial discrimination began to assert its head inside the church of Jesus Christ. A sinful policy of segregated seating (see James 2:1-9) was implemented pushing black members to the side walls and into the balcony while giving privileged seating to whites. Though this idea was opposed by both black and white members, a direct contradiction to the gospel was made policy at St. Georges.7 These tensions were to come to a point of clarity for Allen and many of his friends at a sobering occurrence in 1787. In the very same year the US constitution was being worked on in the city of Philadelphia where slaves were to be treated numerically as 3/5ths of a man.
Some black members of the church were kneeling in prayer along with Absalom Jones. Jones, along with Allen, was a recognized leaders in the church. During the service one of the white trustees interrupted their prayers telling them they had to move from where they had already been directed to sit. The following is one recounting8 of the interaction that took place:
“You must get up” the trustee said. “You must not kneel here”
“Wait until prayer is over” Jones answered.
“No you must get up now, or I will call for aid and force you away”
“Wait until prayer is over” Jones repeated, “And I will get up and trouble you no more.”
The incident ended with the trustee forcibly removing their praying brothers. At this, Allen and the black members of St. George walked out of its doors. Though Jones would leave to form an African American congregation in the Episcopal church, Allen was a Methodist through and through and had no desire to leave the denomination. His opinion was that the Methodist church was the best place for he and other black Christians because, in his words, “the plain and simple gospel suits best for any people.”9
Allen’s desire to see blacks in America worship without hindrance and hear the gospel clearly finally persuaded him to act. In 1794 he purchased an old blacksmith building and converted it to a place of worship. Bishop Francis Asbury consecrated the building and Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church was born.10 Yet the inequality persisted as they had to depend on white ministers until Allen was ordained as a deacon by Asbury in 1799.11From 1800-1816 the Methodists attempted to control Allen and Bethel. These difficulties culminated with Allen and Bethel winning a case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which ruled the real property of the church belonged to the congregation.12Allen was ordained an elder in the Methodist church in 1816 yet he knew they could not freely worship and determine their own affairs while under the thumb of a paternalistic and controlling white influence.
In the spring of 1816 black congregations of Methodists in Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland banded together to form the first black Christian denomination in America. Allen was voted its first bishop and, true to his Methodist roots and convictions, the African Methodist Episcopal Church was born.13The denomination experienced rapid growth throughout the 1800s and in the post Civil War years. Today it is estimated that AME church has approximately 2.5 million members and some 7000 congregations.14
Allen has left many things for us as we look back upon his life and actions in history. First, Allen was first and foremost a Christian and follower of Jesus Christ. He experienced a great gospel awakening that set him forth on the mission of Jesus in his time. We would be wise to follow his example. Second, he stood for justice and equality among all people and races. He worked in the cause of abolition and was a leader for civil rights. This was because of his conviction that Jesus Christ was creator and savior of all people not some. Equality came from God it was not granted by other men. Third, he was an advocate for black people to receive an equal hearing of the gospel and would not stand for subjugation within the churches. He saw this as an affront to the gospel and he labored many years to stay “together” with his white sisters and brothers in Christ. He left when their racial discrimination blatantly contradicted the message of the gospel.
The black churches in America have a great history and legacy of gospel ministry and social change in America. The church’s continued influence for justice in our country still runs deep. We thank God for the life, labor and vision of traditionally black denominations in our land. We also live in a time where the vision of heaven, one people from many tribes, tongues, ethnicities together, is an opportunity here on earth. We have the joy to worship freely in unity on the earth as a foretaste to how we will spend eternity. It is a great joy that Jacob’s Well has among its members Asians, Indians, African Americans, Latinos, Whites and many beautiful combinations of each. It is our hope that Richard Allen’s passion for the gospel of Jesus Christ and his unwavering commitment to justice would live on among us today at Jacob’s Well.
1. Marvin A. McMickle, An Encyclopedia of African American Christian History (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 2002), 2.
2. Curtis, Lang and Petersen, The 100 Most Important Events in Christian History (Grand Rapids: Revel, 1991) 150. For a brief treatment on Benjamin Chew, see his wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Chew
3. See Gali and Olsen, 131 Chritians Everyone Should Know (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2000) 187 and McMickle, 2.
4. Curtis, Lang and Peterson, 150.
5. See Gali and Olsen, “Francis Asbury”, 185.
6. McMickle, 2.
7. Ibid.
8. Curtis, Lang and Peterson 149.
9. Gali and Olsen, 188.
10. Ibid.
11. Curtis, Lang and Peterson, 151.
12. Gali and Olsen.
13. Curtis, Lang and Peterson.
14. McMickle, 3.
15. See World Council of Churches AME page
This past weekend our whole fam was able to get away with some athletes from all over the Northeast. I was teaching a series of four messages about Jesus from the gospels and was also able to lead a Q&A discussion on some varied subjects theological and biblical.
I wanted to link to a few of the seminars given during the weekend here on the POCBlog
A few relavant links to some discussions that came up during my teaching and various discussions
Many thanks to all the staff, volunteers and students at the AIA Retreat. Athletes in Action is a spiritual home of sorts for Kasey and me. It was great to have our kids - 9, 7 and 4 around the sort of environment I grew up in spiritually as a college student and one that Kasey and I served in full time from 1996-2004.
Paul’s letter to the Colossians is a short letter with a singular focus. He wants us to see that Jesus is enough for God’s people. In the middle of Chapter 1 he goes to some length to explain to us who Jesus really is in all his glory. In looking at what some have deemed the “Christ Hymn”1 of Colossians, we quite literally come to one of the mountaintop vistas in the entire Bible. As Jesus is the central focus of the Bible (Luke 24:27) such clear and airy Christology2 found Colossians 1:15-20 is indeed one of the high points of the Bible. This passage has been central to the church’s understanding of Jesus and has been part of a robust theological discussion over the years.
The identity of Jesus was of extreme importance to Christians in every era of history but was especially central to his earliest followers. Jesus himself walked on the earth, lived his life with a community of people, preached, taught, was crucified and raised from death. Jesus is truly a complex person. In the New Testament he is at once a very human, human being. At the same time he claimed to be God striding upon the soils of planet earth. After his life, Jesus’s apostles and their associates wrote down his story, his teachings and eyewitness accounts3 of his death and resurrection in what we call the “Gospels” of the New Testament. There are four of these—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.4 In addition to these gospels there are various sections of the other New Testament writings which speak to the identity of Jesus.
There was some debate among the early Christians as to whether Jesus was “more human” (ala Arianism—he was not fully God) or “more God.” (ala Docetism—a view that said he just appeared human). Some wanted to focus more on his humanity, others on his divinity and some wanted to keep the divine and human separated. There is good reason for this debate. The Bible is vehemently and without equivocation monotheistic. There is only one God (see Deuteronomy 6:4; 2 Samuel 7:22; Isaiah 44:6-8, 45:5; Romans 3:30; Ephesians 4:4-6; James 2:19) and yet Jesus claims to be God and prays to God as his Father. Something wonderful and different is up here!
Historically, the truth of Jesus is found in the New Testament teaching. Clarity on all this matters took some time, but a strong unity was forged in the early creeds and councils of the church. The major controversy was between followers of Arias (who taught that Jesus was a created being and not eternal God) and those following the New Testament in holding God/Humanity of Jesus together in one person. This position’s leader was an Egyptian named Athanasius. These two positions were debated at the Council of Nicea in AD 325. This council was to resolve this debate about the nature of Jesus Christ and was not in any way a council that “gave the church the Bible” or any other of Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code speculation.5
The council of Nicea resulted in a big thumbs down on Arias’ doctrines declaring them to be heresy. The council also affirmed the biblical teaching with an early formation of the Nicene Creed. This document was the statement around which Christians unified in relationship to the unique identity of the God of the Bible as a Triune being existing eternally as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The following is just a snippet that may sound familiar to those who grew up in liturgical church traditions.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
The Nicene creed simply articulated the teaching of the Bible that Jesus was indeed God. More doctrinal precision was provided by the Chalcedonian definition in AD 451 which clarified the biblical teaching that Jesus was fully human and full God in one person. He was not sort of human and really God or sort of God and kinda human. The definition reads as follow.
Therefore, following the holy fathers [early church leaders/pastors], we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us. 6
Though we might need a dictionary along with us to read the above, it is indeed an awesome statement. The teachings of these creeds about Jesus are simply articulations of the teaching of Jesus and the apostles and have played a unifying role in church history.7 In fact, all Christians from every tradition—Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Evangelical8 are in agreement on the truths of these creeds. Why? They come from the Bible which bears witness to this unique person. In fact, Jesus is revealed in the Scripture as the most unique person who ever lived. The following will be but a simple survey of some of the biblical teaching.
Jesus is not normal. Never was, never will be. In fact, he is the most startling, unique, mysterious, glorious, compelling, magnetic, loving and true person who ever lived. The Scriptures reveal to us both truths that Jesus was God and man. The following will be a listing of some of the biblical teaching.
In the Old Testament we are taught that the coming Messiah/Christ would be a human being (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6,7). Jesus fulfills this in every way. First, he was born into and grew up in a human family (Luke 1-2). Second, he exhibits the full range of human emotions in the gospels. He was tired, hungry, thirsty and in his humanity he had limited knowledge (John 4:6-7 and 19:28, Mark 13:32). Third, Philippians 2:6-8 clearly teaches that Jesus, though was in very nature God, humbled himself and became human. Fourth, He was tempted just as we are yet did not sin. (Matthew 4, Hebrews 4:15) Some erroneously teach that to be human means to be sinful. Yet we see Jesus fully human without sin. Finally, all the gospels record that Jesus bled and died on the cross. It is simple for us to understand Jesus was an historical human being, yet some question whether this man was truly God incarnate. The amount of biblical testimony to this second claim is actually massive in detail. On we go to that happy trail.
Here we will provide a sketch of the testimony of Scripture as to the deity of Jesus along five major lines. For those who desire more I refer you to a couple of clear recent works that cover the issues in some detail.10
#1 He is clearly called God and divine names are attributed to Jesus
First, Jesus is called theos the Greek word for God in many places in the New Testament (John 1:1, John 20:28, Romans 9:5, Hebrews 1:8, Titus 2:13, 1 John 5:20, 2 Peter 1:1). Second, he is called the Son of God in the gospels. This is sometimes a misunderstood concept where many think this distinguishes Jesus from being God. Philosopher Peter Kreeft makes the following observation that sheds light on how this title was understood. Kreeft writes: Son of a dog, is a dog, son of an ape an ape, son of God, is God — Jews were Monotheistic, only one God—Son of God is the divine title of Jesus and everyone at his time understood this title to mean just that.9 Third, Jesus is called the Son of Man some 84 times in the gospels and is his most used title for himself. This title represents the perfection of humanity in the person of Jesus in contrast to the sinful nature of humanity in Adam.11 It is also a direct reference to the divine figure in Daniel 7 of the Old Testament. Jesus used this to describe both his first and second coming. About his first coming he said, the Son of Man came to give his life as a ransom for people (Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28). As to his second coming, in direct reference to Daniel 7, he tells the high priest at his trial that the Son of Man will come again on the clouds of heaven. At this he is accused of blasphemy because he had claimed to be God. See dialogue in Matthew 62-65. Finally, Jesus is called LORD, kurios, which is used for Yahweh in Greek translations of the Old Testament (Philippians 2:11, 1 Corinthians 2:8).
# 2 Certain attributes of God are used to describe Jesus
There are certain characteristics about God that theologians calls his divine attributes. Some of these are directly predicated to Jesus as well. Jesus is said to be unchanging (Hebrews 1:12, quoting Psalm 102:25-27, Hebrews 13:8) and all powerful (Philippians 3:20,21, Revelation 1:8) and eternal (Isaiah 9:6,7; Micah 5:2).
# 3 Jesus does the works of God
Jesus is said to be the creator and providential sustainer of all (Colossians 1:15-20, Hebrews 1:1-3). Furthermore, he is said to give eternal life and forgives sins that are against God (John 10:28, John 17:2, 1 John 2:25, Mark 2:5-12, Colossians 1:14, 3:13). Jesus’ miracles also confirm his power over nature, disease and death itself.
#4 He is worshipped as God by monotheistic people
The Scriptures are clear that the worship of anyone or anything is idolatry and the deepest of sins. Deuteronomy 6:13-15 teaches us that God’s people shall worship/fear only the Lord their God. Additionally, The Ten Commandments call us to worship only the God of the Bible and to reject idols and the worship of images (Exodus 20). Furthermore, the angels, various men and Jesus himself all understand that worship is exclusively for God (Angels in Revelation 19 and 22, Peter in Acts 10, Paul in Acts 14 and Jesus himself quotes Deuteronomy 6:13 to Satan during his own temptations in Matthew 4). So we find something amazing happening in the New Testament. Jesus is worshipped and he accepts worship without any hesitation at all (Matthew 2:11, John 9:35-39, Matthew 21:9-16, Luke 19.37-40 and Matthew 28:9,10, 17). Even more amazing is that God the Father actually commands angels to worship Jesus (Hebrews 1:6) and Jesus will be clearly worshipped in Heaven (Revelation 5).
#5 He directly claimed to be God
His own testimony is that he is the pre-existing great I AM of Exodus 3 (John 8:58), he is one in essence with the Father (John 10:30), he existed with the Father before the world began (John 17:5) and he claims to be the divine Christ (Matthew 26:63,64). His enemies wanted him killed for blasphemy because he, a mere man, was clearly claiming to be God.
The wonder of Jesus Christ isn’t that he was a great moral teacher. He was. The wonder of Jesus Christ is not that he was kind, loving and compassionate to the poor. He was. The glory is found in that God became poor and one of us. He desires to walk with us, teach us and lead us. The glory is that Jesus is worthy of worship because as the unique Son of God he gave his life for us. Some might make him too exalted and far away—less human. Some might seek to bring him down from heaven and make him just a slob like one of us.11 Dear friends, the path he gives us is much better. He shares our humanity and lives with us by his Spirit as the divine, glorified and risen Savior. He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords—he shall reign forever and we shall worship him. He is worthy of all that we are.
1. See discussion in Douglas Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and Philemon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008) See introductory section on Colossians 1:15.
2. Christology is the theological discipline dedicated to the study of the person (who he is) and work (what he has done) of Jesus the Christ.
3. See Richard Baukham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006)
4. Matthew and John were among the twelve apostles. Mark wrote down the apostle Peter’s account (see my introduction to Mark here http://www.powerofchange.org/storage/docs/nt_web_jw.pdf) and Luke was the traveling companion and missionary secretary of St. Paul. Luke’s gospel, by its own prologue, was Luke’s job to pull together the Jesus story with some precision.
5. A simple, helpful book on all that schmack Darryl Bock, Breaking the Da Vinci Code (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006).
6. Both the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian Definition can readily be found online. Use the Bing or the Google and you’ll find these. Or just go here—http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html
7. For a thorough treatment on creeds and there use in the Christian tradition, see Jaroslav Pelikan, Credo-Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). Good buy for the library.
8. For the continued Evangelical consensus on these issues see JI Packer and Thomas Oden, One Faith—The Evangelical Consensus (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2004) 71-75.
9. Geisler and Hoffman, Why I am a Christian, Part 5, Chapter 13—Peter Kreeft Why I believe Jesus is the Son of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001) 222-234.
10. Donald Macleod, The Person of Christ, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1998) and Robert Bowman, J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place, The Case for the Deity of Christ (Grand Rapids: Kregal, 2007)
11. Ben Witherington III, “The Christology of Jesus Revisited” in Francis Beckwith, William Lane Craig, JP Moreland, To Everyone an Answer – The Case for the Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press, 2004) 155
12. Lyrics by Eric Bazilian , One of Us, performed by Joan Osborne, 1995.
The following is a quote that perhaps many of you are familiar with. It is an excerpt from a speech given by the former president Theodore Roosevelt. It was given at the Sorbonne in Parish in 1910 during the years immediately after Roosevelt’s two terms as President (1901-1908).
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.Theodore Roosevelt, The Man in the Arena, 1910. Available online at http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html
Subversion - Jesus as Lord in the Book of Colossians from Reid Monaghan on Vimeo.
Christ Jesus is Lord…
With such a simple phrase God was subverting the powers of the earth and raising up the kingdom of his chosen one. Throughout history humanity has ruled one another through kings and potentates, small sovereigns who made big claims to power, dominance and authority. Many more have been dominated and subjected by their fear of spirits, false religion and the basic forces of the world. Yet one king arrived humbly on the earth and went to the grave executed as a criminal. That same king arose triumphantly over death and then led a mission throughout the world by the power of the Spirit and the proclaiming of good news. This king was called kurios, Lord and Master, by subjects of the ancient empire that was Rome. To declare Jesus as kurios is hard enough for humanity that so often chooses self-exaltation; it was utterly subversive in a culture where only Caesar was due such title. Jesus subverted all powers and every empire and brought a new Kingdom of love and light under the rule and reign of God.
Join us in the new year for our study Subversion – Jesus as Lord in the Book of Colossians to see that the first and foremost ruler of all is the incarnate creator God himself. Jesus, the Lord…new teaching series beginning at Jacob’s Well on Sunday January 23rd
Subversion, Jesus as Lord in the Book of Colossians
I just finished up an introduction to Colossians for the peeps at Jacob’s Well. We’ll be giving these out next Sunday but I thought some of you guys might enjoy here at the POCBlog. I would throw it up as a blog entry but it would be too long. I would then break it up into a gigillion small blog entries but I have not the time to do that. So…I’ve put it in a PDF and linked it to the image above.
Cake is going the distance and is sick of you…this is a great song illustrating the vanity of life under the Sun without God. Thanks to Ben V for passing this along.
All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it;the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 1:8-9
Men,
I wanted to share something that I am doing at Christmas for my kids. Grandparents and relatives are kind and very generous with our kids at Christmas so Kase and I have never really given our kids presents. It was not some intentional thing we just never did with the first kid and so we just kept the practice of blessing them on their birthdays and not giving them any presents at Christmas. Anyway, this year I was praying about how I could give a piece of me to my kids as I dearly love each of them.
On Christmas Eve morning I got up early and spent some time writing each of them a personal Christmas letter. I read about this somewhere or heard about this practice from someone but I honestly cannot remember where. The letters included things I enjoyed doing with them during the past year, things I appreciate about their character, things about Christ and a little exhortation for areas I wanted to challenge them in. I also put some custom graphics on the page that relate to nicknames/themes I have with them (a baby duck for Kayla, a piece of candy for my Sweetie Ky and a Knight for Sir Thomas).
I printed the letters and placed them in a large clasp envelope and personally addressed them to the kids. On Christmas Eve I placed them within the branches of our Christmas tree and they were giddy with excitement and wondering what they were. Kayla of course said, I bet they are letters from Daddy! Kylene said it could be artwork! One, I cannot recall which, said “It could be money!” I asked Kayla before bed if she would rather have money or a letter and she said “a letter of course” - I winked at her and we went to bed.
It was such a delight to write them but it was even more of a delight to open them Christmas morning. I had all of them climb into my lap and I read them one at a time to each child as the others listened. The moment was one of the sweetest I have had with the kids and I think they will remember this for a long time. At least until next year - as we agreed this is now a family tradition.
I thought about posting a pdf of the letters here and then decided against it. Those were for two little princesses and one little Knight and I think we’ll keep it that way :-)
How can you give yourself to your kids in the holiday season? Think it through and come up with an idea, maybe this one, that you can do together as you turn your hearts toward your children.
I ran across this video today by the late Carl Sagan on a blog by an atheist technology enthusiast. First, I want to say that I mean no disrespect to the dead, but I’m really unsure how such thinking is thought to be profound by those who should know better. This post is in no way meant as disrespect for Sagan the man - though I don’t understand why anyone would sue a company as perfect as Apple Computer or say some of the silly things he says in this video.
Take a look:
The first short section (up until 1:09) is the only serious reflection and I found here with the final seven minutes dedicated towards Sagan’s seeming enthrallment with Hinduism. I do not intend to interact with Hindu thought here, but I will say that Sagan uses this jaunt to the east in order to arrive subtly where he begins - God(s) do not exist and they are the creation of the minds of humanity.
Throughout this piece, Sagan acknowledges the universal human desire to find an explanation for our existence and the existence of all things. He then, sadly, seems to dismiss this quest for an answer with a bit of philosophical hand waving.
After acknowledging inflationary big bang theory, he goes on to recognize the question as to what existed before the beginning of matter/space/time. As many societies in culture have posited at this point some sort of supernatural explanation (God or gods created it) Sagan then puts on a courageous hat and begins to discuss this answer. In summary form his reasoning is as follows.
Let me stop us here for a moment. This is a great question. For indeed if there is an infinite regress of causes then we actually explain nothing. What caused the universe? god! What caused that god? Another god! Ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I quite heartily agree with him at this point.
At this point Sagan makes a move that I find quite strange and not very brights. He asks “Why not save a step” and just assume that the universe, not God(s), was always there eternal and uncaused. In other words, something seems to need to be eternal and uncaused, so why multiply entities beyond need. We need no God, we have an eternal, uncaused universe. In philosophy, the eternal and uncaused would be seen as a necessary entity, something that is not contingent. Something whose existence does not depend on anything else…it just IS.
Now, my simple question is this: Did he not begin this quest with a desire to understand our universe and its origin? Saving a step is a wise principle in philosophy that was put forth by the Christian skeptic William of Ockham. Also known as the principle of parsimony, or Ockham’s razor, this teaches us that we do not need to provide complex explanations when a simpler one will do. We need not posit something else to explain the origin of the universe if the universe itself IS the answer. The problem with Sagan’s thought here is that we can actually study this universe and conclude several things.
My question back to the disciples of men like Carl Sagan is this. Why are you avoiding the question with which you begin? The answer to the explanation of all things cannot be a contingent thing in itself - it must be eternal, uncaused and necessary. If we are courageous we will ask this question and not “save that step” for that is indeed how this game was started in the first place.
So to answer Dr. Sagan’s initial questions directly:
For those who hold to many forms of theism, the answer is “God created the universe” and we stop at the eternal, uncaused, necessary being that by his own will created all things. We do not posit an infinite regress of gods or universes; we do save our steps. We also do not create all the unnecessary steps of positing an infinite number of universes (as many do today) or an infinite number of gods (as many have and will continue to do). To do so would simply create some bushes to hide in from our most fundamental questions. What we will do, however, is give metaphysical and theological answers to describe the nature of the one who creates nature. A natural explanation is not and could not be coming at this point. Why? God is not creation. God is of a different category than the universe that we can indeed study with empirical science. God is other. God is God.
For those who do not like such answers, for whatever tendentious reasons, I give you back to the philosophical sophisms given by Sagan. Bon appetit!
This fall at Jacob’s Well we have been tracking through the ancient wisdom literature known as the book of Ecclesiastes (from Greek through to Latin, which means Teacher of an Assembly or “Preacher”). It has been a great ride for our community. Link to the series audio is online here.
Here are a few visual reflections from our wrap up. The first illustrates the inclusio of Ecclesiastes while the second is a wordle of the ESV text of Ecclesiastes created with Wordle.net.
In light of the below Christmas Eve rant, I thought it would be good to share how we use various social media and web stuff. If you are on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, various bloggin stuff, I would love to hear how you use each. Here is the way I use em.
I use Facebook very sparingly and for a relatively small range of functionality. I post photos and videos I want friends and family to see - my smartphone does this in an integrated fashion making the process easy. I also interact with friends just sharing small likes and comments along the way. I update my Facebook status from my Twitter feed but don’t do that on the FB site. I do not do any games, applications which I have to join, etc. etc. If you ask me to take quizzes, surveys, play Zynga games I will simply delete those requests without any thought. I spend a very small time online with Facebook but utilize the site daily.
I am ambivalent about Twitter. I used to read RSS feeds in a feed reader but I find myself rarely doing so these days do to browsing my Twitter feed. I use Twitter to read news from various sources, read links from interesting people and to interact with friends in a fully public way. As mentioned above I update my Facebook status from Twitter so I do tweet basic life stuff from time to time. I also use it to announce stuff, post links to resources and throw up pics through my webOS twitter app. I follow only a few people I do not know personally. If I do not know them I usually follow if they have some expertise in some field in which I am interested. I sometimes want to converse with people on Twitter and interact with stuff people tweet. I find Twitter terrible for such interaction and better for just blasting stuff out to the masses. I spend too much time each day reading my Twitter feed. I’m not proud of it and it has messed with my reading habits.
I use my blog to write things that are longer than 140 characters and things which are more essay oriented. If I want to share links I now tweet them. Unfortunately I used to write more about things I read online before Twitter. My blog has been up since 2004 and I try to use it as a place to publish written pieces on various subjects of interest…most common would be theology, philosophy, technology and stuff I am reading. Over the years I have used the following blogging platforms: Blogger, MovableType and now Squarespace. I luuuv Squarespace. I’ll share personal stuff there from time to time but I have done that less of late. I constantly break the “rules of blogging” mainly in that I write long posts that nobody will read. I have never had a blog in order to “have a big awesome blog” but rather a place for thinking, publishing and posting writing I do for real people I know.
I currently don’t play Foursquare (I did in elementary school at recess though), I don’t Gowalla and I don’t check in with Facebook Places. I know it is cool to tell the world where you roll and become the mayor of BW3s. I just have not been interested in that schmack until now. Never saying never though.
So, how do you use online stuff? Still on MySpace? Orkut anyone?
This morning I have finally been provoked enough to write something that has been chaffing me for some time. In the LA Times, Neal Gabler recently published an opinion piece entitled The Zuckerberg Revolution - Social media have increased the volume of our communications yet diminished the substance of them in which he discusses the effect on public discourse of our desire for communication today to be “seamless, informal, immediate, personal, simple, minimal and short.” In other words, the desire that communication be a short stream of nothingness floating by us in a feed of tweets, news and nonsense. OK, that is perhaps my bias showing already.
I will say up front that I am on Twitter, Facebook and obviously I am writing this on my own personal blog. I am in no way a Luddite nor do I disdain new forms of communication. I do however, share Gabler’s concerns that if these sorts of communications become the de facto standard for life in our culture we will loose our ability for complex thought, shaping of ideas, forming arguments and will continue on our way towards a sort of imbecility. Gabler’s argument centers around the difference between a culture of books/print/reading and that of passive consumption of textual electronic communication. I will leave it to you to read his entire essay - surrounded by banner and Google ads of course - but before I move on from him I want to share a few of his more significant quotes - too long for Tweeting of course.
The seamless, informal, immediate, personal, simple, minimal and short communication is not one that is likely to convey, let alone work out, ideas, great or not. Facebook, Twitter, Habbo, MyLife and just about every other social networking site pare everything down to noun and verb and not much more. The sites, and the information on them, billboard our personal blathering, the effluvium of our lives, and they wind up not expanding the world but shrinking it to our own dimensions. You could call this a metaphor for modern life, increasingly narcissistic and trivial, except that the sites and the posts are modern life for hundreds of millions of people.
…
Gutenberg’s Revolution transformed the world by broadening it, by proliferating ideas. Zuckerberg’s Revolution also may change consciousness, only this time by razing what Gutenberg had helped erect. The more we text and Twitter and “friend,” abiding by the haiku-like demands of social networking, the less likely we are to have the habit of mind or the means of expressing ourselves in interesting and complex ways.
…
He [Zuck] has facilitated a typography in which complexity is all but impossible and meaninglessness reigns supreme. To the extent that ideas matter, we are no longer amusing ourselves to death. We are texting ourselves to death. Ideas, of course, will survive, but more and more they will live at the margins of culture; more and more they will be a private reserve rather than a general fund. Meanwhile, everything at the cultural center militates against the sort of serious engagement that McLuhan described and that Postman celebrated.
…
Postman [referring to Neal Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death] was more apocalyptic. He believed that a reading society was also a thinking society. No real reading, no real thought. Still, he couldn’t have foreseen that a reading society in which print that was overwhelmingly seamless, informal, personal, short et al would be a society in which that kind of reading would force thought out — a society in which tens of millions of people feel compelled to tell tens of millions of other people that they are eating a sandwich or going to a movie or watching a TV show. So Zuckerberg’s Revolution has a corollary that one might call Zuckerberg’s Law: Empty communications drive out significant ones.
Gutenberg’s Revolution left us with a world that was intellectually rich. Zuckerberg’s portends one that is all thumbs and no brains.
Neal Gabler, The Zuckerberg Revolution, accessed 12.24.2010
For some time I have been scratching my head as to why we find it a good thing to “write short, simple things” on our blogs so that “people will read them.” It is like we simply accepted that the kids don’t read good any more and we will play along. Even Derek Zoolander made a stand for the kids where we seem to find no will to be counter cultural in our writing, reading and learning.
Just yesterday I was reading a site about how to make your blog awesome, build traffic etc. One of the answers was - keep entries real short and simple containing no complex ideas and thought. I will not tell you the french words I uttered when reading that schmack. Of course this was counsel for those who want high traffic, high readership and high dollars out of their blogs. Obviously, I do not.
One of my passions is to serve the Christian communitity by challenging us to think a bit more. No, I am not some super intellectual guy. I did not get anywhere near a perfect score on my SAT and I am no genius of any sort at all. I do care that we think, engage God, life and mission with some serious reflection about our questions and deep truths. Some of the most popular Christian blogs have taken up the “short entries” banner these days. You can read most of the entries in less than a minute and not have to scratch your head one time, or think through anything. I am guessing this is an intentional style to communicate in today’s culture. But what if today’s culture is heading in a direction that is stupid? Do we just go with it?
I know I will likely hear from some of you that we must accommodate and contextualize in order to connect and communicate today. Of course I will agree. But for God’s sake we must also call ourselves and one another into the deep end of life and thought even though our culture might think there is only a three foot section of the pool. Keep your floaties on kids!
Some might find communication in 165 and 140 characters sufficient and perhaps it is for SOME things. Perhaps we think 22 words is enough to say something and it certainly is enough for something. But are we to be damned to only such things? No, we must not.
Some ways forward. I’ll keep them short and in bullet form so that we all can read them good.
Be a hold out on the reading of books - even long books
Write stuff that is not simple and short - ever so often attempt to say something
Live that way with people - your family, community, church, etc.
Think deeply about important things - life and death, God, truth, ethical lives and meaning - stuff the Bible is about.
Think through your questions and put together your thoughts on them.
So tweet, friend and text in your life but menace your digital flickering with time for thinking, reading and learning. Hold on to truths that cannot be said so quickly and should not lost. We are a culture intent on living through reality TV and tweeting about the fact that we watched it. Each and every generation has cultural forms that lead us to what Ecclesiastes call a chasing after the wind; we certainly have our own. Shall we choose to live only through short and simple nothingness? No, we shall not. Too much remains at stake under the Sun.
That is all - Merry Christmas friends! I will tweet that to all in a bit.
Over the last few weeks I have been joyfully wandering through Edmund Morris’ new book “Colonel Roosevelt” which covers the final period of the life of one of America’s most interesting and influential presidents. The book is the third in a trilogy of works by Morris which have been published over the last few decades. The first work was the Pulitzer prize winning “The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt” and the second, covering his almost eight years as president, was aptly entitled “Theodore Rex”
Colonel Roosevelt begins with the African Safari Roosevelt took after stepping away from the presidency in immense popularity concluding his second term in 1908. The book covers the later years of a career that saw Roosevelt as nature enthusiast, adventurer, international statesmen, author, public intellectual, politician, 3rd party presidential candidate, advocate for WWI preparedness, father/family man and finally a dying icon on the American scene.
Beginning this book I felt I knew very little about Theodore Roosevelt beyond some very small details picked up along the way in the educational process. After reading this work I very much look forward to reading Morris’ first two installments on the life of this man. Certainly Roosevelt was a man of his times; some of his time was in need of transformation. At the same time I felt that much of what this man exemplified has been lost in our day. An advocate for progressive reform in politics, but also not afraid to fight for honor and truth. A man who despised passive, emasculated manhood, yet was a loving husband and father. A man who would chase down lions in the wilderness and get down on the floor to play with the kids. As a Harvard graduate who was fluent in multiple languages, he was a scholar and perhaps one of the best and widest read presidents we have had. At the same time he was also man who would have loved MMA (he had a love for boxing and apparently had lessons in jiu-jitsu and a brown belt in judo - or as he wrote to his sons…he liked “manly sports”)
To put it plainly, Theodore Roosevelt was a dude. A person who would have exemplified the quality that Harvard professor Harvey C. Mansfield recently called Manliness. Yes, he thought a bit much of himself. Yes, he was never lacking words and always spoke his mind somewhat loudly. Yes, he thought war could be virtuous and called pacifists “aunties” and “sublimated sweetbreads.” Perfect man, no way. One of the more interesting people I have ever encountered? Indeed.
I found myself with real tears in the eyes as the story of his death was told in this book. I felt a sense of loss that such a figure would be consumed by that great enemy of the grave. I then remembered the words of Ecclesiastes which say “No man has power to retain the spirit, or power over the day of death.” The great ones all come and go the same way and some inspire others along the way.
Teddy Roosevelt is now a new friend - an enigmatic one. One who was at home in a bar fight and in the courts of European royalty. In short, Roosevelt was not simply a man, he was a dude…one who believed in virtue, adventure, nobility and masculine strength aimed at proper ends. As such, I am all the better for having read this book and anticipate the journey into the earlier books of the trilogy.
Note: For those with commutes or enjoy audio books, Colonel Roosevelt as read by Mark Deakins was a delightful listen with the readers “Roosevelt” voice for each of his quotations a stunning joy which brought me many laugh out loud moments.
This summer I have been a bit into some reading of history. For some time I have loved the history of ideas and how these flow from people in various political, social and economic contexts. Good history is also something done by good story tellers - I have been blessed by both of late.
Here are a few titles which have occupied my mind a bit over the last several months. I also have become somewhat addicted to the audio book reading of John Lee - very intoxicating.
Colossus: Hoover Dam and the Making of the American Century by Michael Hiltzik - this book was a fascinating look at the history of southwestern United States, water rights, the entrepreneurs and engineers who put blood, sweat, tears and political wrangling into the project to bring electrical power and water to the arid dessert. Very good read that covers a broad history and range of subject. Book and Audiobook
Empires of the Sea: The Siege of Malta, the Battle of Lepanto, and the Contest for the Center of the World by Roger Crowley - A wonderful read that focuses on the 16th century battles between the great Mediterranean sea powers of the Spanish and Ottomon Empires. The story of the Battle of Malta was unfamiliar to me and I am thankful that this deficit has now been remedied. Book and Audiobook
Worlds At War: The 2,500-Year Struggle Between East and West by Anthony Pagden - Though a bit tainted by the author’s massive secular bias, this book nonetheless succeeds at covering a massive swath of history. It truly does traverse the entire 2500 years. I really felt like the author had a naive and ignorant view of religion and the conclusion of the book was just weak and demonstrative of the lack of any real vision secularism offers today. It was worth the time to read; I particularly enjoyed the early histories involving Alexander the Great and the Persian empires. This book is also very long. Book and Audiobook
Lee: A Life of Virtue (The Generals) by John Perry - A short treatment of the life of Robert E. Lee with emphasis on his character and virtue as a leader. This was my first book on Lee and I found it interesting and compelling enough for me to add two very long movies to our Netflix Queue :-) Book and Audiobook.
The History of the Medieval World: From the Conversion of Constantine to the First Crusade bySusan Wise Bauer - I enjoyed this much more than Pagden’s work as it did not carry the anti-religious baggage along the journey. Bauer covers not only the typical western far but also the histories of Islamic empires and those ruling the lands of China, India and Japan. Though the western histories are a bit more robust the breadth of the treatment of the time period was much appreciated. Bauer is an English prof at the college of William and Mary and appears to be married to a minister. This showed in both her writing and lack of derogatory tone towards religious views. Also very long. Book and Audiobook
OK, that’s all for now - I’m off in search for my next read in history - love medieval and late medieval periods so I may land there.
Any suggestions?
Over the last month or so the POCBlog has lay fallow. It is not that I have not been writing, thinking, teaching and working on many things. I actually have. It is just that I have been writing for direct ministry and speaking quite a bit locally.
I do plan to resume some writing here at the POCBlog in the near future and hopeful God will give me the time and grace to do so. Until then…
